Originally posted by KellyJayHo many times must I emphasis that I am not talking about a computer program that I wrote? I am talking about my computer the machine. It is a complex system is it not? If it is, then by your claim it must be 1. decaying over time and 2. not have arisen.
You wrote your computer program; your program did what you
programmed it to do as it executed the code you put in it. The
code didn’t just happen/arise by itself, you coded it.
Kelly
But I notice that you are mostly just avoiding answering a single one of my questions. You clearly either don't know what complexity or entropy mean or know that your claim is false. If you thought your claim was true and knew the meaning of the words it should be trivial to answer my very basic questions:
1. Which has a higher entropy, a jar of muddy water or a jar of muddy water which has been left to settle until the water is clear and the mud is in neat layers at the bottom?
2. Which is more complex in 1?
The same applies to your other claim and your refusal to tell me what 'arise' means and whether or not my computer is decaying.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBecause he loves pissing us off, loves to rattle our chains.
Your refusal to answer any of his 3 questions is an induction that you either have no answers to his questions or that you just haven’t even bothered to think about them because you don’t want reason to enter the discussion.
You have nothing real to say so why even bother saying anything?
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSorry; yet another spelling mistake; should have been:
Your refusal to answer any of his 3 questions is an induction that you either have no answers to his questions or that you just haven’t even bothered to think about them because you don’t want reason to enter the discussion.
You have nothing real to say so why even bother saying anything?
“Your refusal to answer any of his 3 questions is an indication that you either …”
-My spellchecker is correcting my bad spellings to the wrong words.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have been saying those things just don't arise, someone built
Ho many times must I emphasis that I am not talking about a computer program that I wrote? I am talking about my computer the machine. It is a complex system is it not? If it is, then by your claim it must be 1. decaying over time and 2. not have arisen.
But I notice that you are mostly just avoiding answering a single one of my questions. You clearly ...[text shortened]... im and your refusal to tell me what 'arise' means and whether or not my computer is decaying.
your computer system, it didn't fashion itself all by itself with
nothing directing its formation from scratch. I also can promise you,
in time you will need to replace parts of your system well before you
are forced to replace the whole thing. The CPU in your system will not
last forever, it will degrade, not because the designers want it too, but
voltages applied to it will cause it to degrade and slow down over time
(years) and at some point it will not operate the software you are
running on it. Your harddrive will also give you issues in years too or
less depending on your computer habits. I suggest you back up your
data, and while your at it, make sure you are getting all the required
updates for the software you are using to run your system too.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo thinks can exist that didn't 'arise'? Is that what you are saying? Now we are getting somewhere.
I have been saying those things just don't arise, someone built
your computer system, it didn't fashion itself all by itself with
nothing directing its formation from scratch.
No what about my body, it started as a single cell, and is now a far more complex organism of billions of cells. Did my body arise, or did it come from somewhere else?
From the point of my conception until now, would you describe the changes to my body as continuous degradation?
The CPU in your system will not last forever, it will degrade, not because the designers want it too, but
voltages applied to it will cause it to degrade and slow down over time (years)
Actually it will probably eventually stop working, but it will not slow down. It will either work at its current speed or not work. Its frequency is controlled by a timing mechanism that is dependent on unchanging laws of physics.
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay. Do me a favor and make sure the answer in some way conforms to the format of:
I tell you what I have already given you what you asked for, but I'll
go a step more than that. I'll give you some reasons where I go into
greater detail. I'll attempt to post that this weekend.
Kelly
I believe A to be the case because of x reason, and I find y reason against A to be compelling because
of z reason.
Obviously, it will be more elaborate than that, but one should be able to summarize A using the
above format.
If you don't do that, then you're basically just wasting your time, because I'm simply going to ask
you to rephrase or clarify whatever you say into a format that conforms to the above.
The reason I ask you for this is because you have, in the past, simply said 'I believe A because
A seems reasonable to me,' and provided no discernible reasons.
Recall that the questions are:
1) Why would a designer give a human an eye that is otherwise identical to an octopus' eye, but
has blind spots?; and
2a) If you hold that the physiology octopus' eye would be more harmful than that of the human's
eye, why would this be the case (i.e., what reasons do you have to believe that this would be
the case); or
2b) If you hold that humans used to have the same eye as an octopus, but it somehow changed,
why would this be the case (i.e., what reasons do you have to believe that this would be the case)?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour body started with the with the joining of sperm and egg, it had
So thinks can exist that didn't 'arise'? Is that what you are saying? Now we are getting somewhere.
No what about my body, it started as a single cell, and is now a far more complex organism of billions of cells. Did my body arise, or did it come from somewhere else?
From the point of my conception until now, would you describe the changes to my body as ...[text shortened]... requency is controlled by a timing mechanism that is dependent on unchanging laws of physics.
the luxury of DNA programming causing it to go through a process
that brought you forth. The discussion is about can that type of
coding actually come about (arise) with the process of evolution which
as it has been defined, a aimless, goal-less, thought-less process
and can we look at all that DNA does and actually credit that type of
coding without a designer? I use designer meaning one that codes
with intent.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioYou will get what you get.
Okay. Do me a favor and make sure the answer in some way conforms to the format of:
I believe A to be the case because of x reason, and I find y reason against A to be compelling because
of z reason.
Obviously, it will be more elaborate than that, but one should be able to summarize A using the
above format.
If you don't do that, then yo ...[text shortened]... case (i.e., what reasons do you have to believe that this would be the case)?
Nemesio
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI don't care if you think my reasons are justified, I don't beg you to
If it lacks reasons, then don't waste your time. I'm just trying to spare you what clearly is a monumental
effort to justify your beliefs as the most reasonable ones to have.
Nemesio
justify your views. I'm going to give you my reasons for my stance you
can either accept them, or reject them, how you feel about them is
not much of a concern of mine. I've already told you, between the
two of us I think your worries about the eyes comparison is a waist of
time.
Kelly